I do believe the airspace is owned by Berkeley, and such radio transmissions may disrupt other buildings. Therefore I do believe this would still be an issue that needs the permission of the Regents of Berkeley so that it can be cleared whether those concerns are real.

A perfect example of how an uninformed individual can discount a viable option.
And, why there is so much red tape in the first place.
"we probably wont be able to obtain permission , so we should'nt even bother" is what I'm hearing.

However , no entity can control the radio signals above and beyond the FCC in the USA, Berkeley has absolutely no say in that matter.

They may be able to restrict the ground based facility of the transmitter or dictate it's location.
They may also have "radio free" areas for certain experiments but overall no.

To say that there would be unwanted interference with any other project on campus is simply a lack of knowledge of the systems involved. (no offence)

If that were true wouldn't all cell phones, tablets and other wireless devices that live on campus need to be regulated?

Airspace = something else entirely and has nothing to do with data transmission

This appears to have become a thread jacking , sorry Matt .
I'll shut up now :P

"we probably wont be able to obtain permission , so we should'nt even bother" is what I'm hearing.

It seems this is a perfect example of someone reading/hearing what they want to without confirming what they are hearing.

I may be being dismissive, but I never said they couldn't try.

If that were true wouldn't all cell phones, tablets and other wireless devices that live on campus need to be regulated?

It is not an uncommon practice these days for private entities to install devices such as cell phone jammers (some U.S. theaters do this) for short range blockage.

The FCC may have jurisdiction to dictate what standards and what frequencies are allowed to be used by whom, but they cannot and do not have jurisdiction in private settings.

The University of California at Berkeley may be a public institution, but the Regents of Berkeley are responsible for everything that happens on their campus, including any radio transmitters that may disrupt or cause problems with other science equipment in other buildings. Yes, if everything is FCC certified, this shouldn't be an issue, but part of the problem that crops up is that when building scientific instruments and not every piece of equipment is passed through the FCC for validation, especially if the device is a prototype.

The area where SETI@Home resides is in a shared laboratory called Space Sciences Lab, and there are many other scientific projects going on inside that building other than SETI@Home. The Regents may want input from anyone around the area before approving anything regardless of how you think it will likely not affect them.

That is the reason for red tape. To say that the Regents of Berkeley or any other project in the area will have no objection shows how little you have in an understanding of the politics involved (no offense).

Airspace = something else entirely and has nothing to do with data transmission

I'm referring to the immediate airspace of the owned land, and it has everything to do with the politics in being allowed. If I wanted to, I could install a signal blocker in my house to block any signal in my immediate area. This blocker won't affect any major long-range communications as the frequencies are usually bounced off the ionosphere and therefore would not be in violation of federal laws. Every land owner has the right to do this, and as stated previously, it does happen in many areas all over the US.

So yes, the Regents of Berkeley can choose to restrict the short-range communications going over their immediate airspace if they wanted, for the previously stated reasons of possible conflicts to other systems.

I did not state that there would be no objections, even went so far as to offer some probable ones. Politics can be played by it's own game.

The entire SSL building could benefit from such a system.

If someone who actually knows if/why a potential wireless plan was scrapped before, could pipe in here.

It's pretty obvious that cost alone would probably kill this idea...

But just FYI an entity may choose to block incoming radio signals as it deems fit , but it may not impede the transmission from point a to point b in the process. That is fact.
You can use whatever means you have to "block" the signals but, if your device alters or distorts the signal in such a way that it cannot be received, it is then illegal
So, Hypothetically, if I wanted to beam burst microwaves (with FCC approved equipment) across campus ,as long as my transmit and receive array are not "on the property", I can.
If berkeley wishes, they can "block " my signal from being received "on campus" but they may not impede my signals travel across campus

However the above is moot since, at least one of the wireless devices would "need" to be on campus. I"m only trying to make the legality of it clear to those who may be mislead by your statements.

But just FYI an entity may choose to block incoming radio signals as it deems fit , but it may not impede the transmission from point a to point b in the process. That is fact.
You can use whatever means you have to "block" the signals but, if your device alters or distorts the signal in such a way that it cannot be received, it is then illegal
So, Hypothetically, if I wanted to beam burst microwaves (with FCC approved equipment) across campus ,as long as my transmit and receive array are not "on the property", I can.
If berkeley wishes, they can "block " my signal from being received "on campus" but they may not impede my signals travel across campus

However the above is moot since, at least one of the wireless devices would "need" to be on campus. I"m only trying to make the legality of it clear to those who may be mislead by your statements.

Correction, the above scenario is only true if you are using FCC validated equipment and you have permission from the land owner to not only receive, but to also transmit a signal. None of it is governed by the FCC if the equipment is prototype or if you are strictly forbidden to transmit the signal in the first place.

But yes, the entirety above is moot as my entire post was discussing any point (transmitter or receiver) being located on the property of the land owner, which I clearly stated. I never once said that modifying an FCC approved signal was legal in any way, nor do I think anyone would have been mislead by what I stated despite your concern.

So yes, the Regents of Berkeley can choose to restrict the short-range communications going over their immediate airspace if they wanted, for the previously stated reasons of possible conflicts to other systems.

So yes, the Regents of Berkeley can choose to restrict the short-range communications going over their immediate airspace if they wanted, for the previously stated reasons of possible conflicts to other systems.

If someone has done something to correct the download problem, it looks as if it might have been successful.

The shorty storm is over, most people have finished processing them, no AP work is being produced, and most caches would now be full.
End result- drastically reduced download traffic.
Once AP starts up or another batch of shorties goes through, or after the usual weekly outage, expect downloads to revert to a crawl again.
____________
Grant
Darwin NT.

It is not an uncommon practice these days for private entities to install devices such as cell phone jammers (some U.S. theaters do this) for short range blockage.

If they are, they are breaking the law and should be reported. Last time I looked, any interference with radio-telephone or other telecommunications, except for certain law-enforcement and military exemptions, is a violation of Federal Law and FCC regulation. The Bay Area Rapid Transit system (BART) got crapped on earlier this year for shutting down cell-phone repeaters in its underground stations to prevent a flash-mob protest they thought might turn violent.

The FCC may have jurisdiction to dictate what standards and what frequencies are allowed to be used by whom, but they cannot and do not have jurisdiction in private settings.

I believe that is also incorrect. The FCC has jurisdiction over ALL radio-frequency spectrum and communications within the borders of the United States. In that regard, there are NO private settings.
____________
Donald
Infernal Optimist / Submariner, retired

It would be a microwave link, working in the same way that telco's already use for long-distance transmission. These have been installed by many large companies, in some cases to eliminate expensive leased lines, in others to provide links in areas where cabling is difficult. Such equipment isn't an impulse purchase, but is affordable and non-disruptive.
____________

It is not an uncommon practice these days for private entities to install devices such as cell phone jammers (some U.S. theaters do this) for short range blockage.

If they are, they are breaking the law and should be reported. Last time I looked, any interference with radio-telephone or other telecommunications, except for certain law-enforcement and military exemptions, is a violation of Federal Law and FCC regulation. The Bay Area Rapid Transit system (BART) got crapped on earlier this year for shutting down cell-phone repeaters in its underground stations to prevent a flash-mob protest they thought might turn violent.

The FCC may have jurisdiction to dictate what standards and what frequencies are allowed to be used by whom, but they cannot and do not have jurisdiction in private settings.

I believe that is also incorrect. The FCC has jurisdiction over ALL radio-frequency spectrum and communications within the borders of the United States. In that regard, there are NO private settings.

Mea culpa on the cell phone jammers, but on everything else, no, I am not incorrect:

Generally, the FCC has jurisdiction everywhere in the USA. By its rules jamming by your average Joe or Jane of any licensed service is completely illegal:

The operation of transmitters designed to jam or block wireless communications is a violation of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"). See 47 U.S.C. Sections 301, 302a, 333. The Act prohibits any person from willfully or maliciously interfering with the radio communications of any station licensed or authorized under the Act or operated by the U.S. government. 47 U.S.C. Section 333. The manufacture, importation, sale or offer for sale, including advertising, of devices designed to block or jam wireless transmissions is prohibited. 47 U.S.C. Section 302a(b). Parties in violation of these provisions may be subject to the penalties set out in 47 U.S.C. Sections 501-510. Fines for a first offense can range as high as $11,000 for each violation or imprisonment for up to one year, and the device used may also be seized and forfeited to the U.S. government.

However the Reagan and Bush administrations have heavily thinned out the FCC (And EPA, and FDA, FTC, and DOC ) inspection, monitoring, and enforcement budgets, so in reality you can get away with most anything.

Also note the loophole about "Licensed" communications. Lots of heavily-used systems, like wireless home phones, baby monitors, and Wi-Fi are unlicensed.

It would be a microwave link, working in the same way that telco's already use for long-distance transmission. These have been installed by many large companies, in some cases to eliminate expensive leased lines, in others to provide links in areas where cabling is difficult. Such equipment isn't an impulse purchase, but is affordable and non-disruptive.

I agree. Unfortunately, I did a little map check and there is no good line of sight from the likely transmission points , more than 3 repeaters would be needed and a whole lot more co-opperation than just the university would be involved ... towers rented, utility costs, all long term debts, that would hamper the project more than it would help.

I'm guessing that the seti@home project does not "pay" for the bandwidth the school provides either, or it is automatically figured into their budget.
That said, I don't see it fitting in the plans

On the other hand : if the work distribution problems that randomly plague this project are interfering with good science then some action will have to be taken.

As S@H data is classed non-time critical, and the science is generally happening with the walls of the SSL the restricted bandwidth and other problems are not significant to S@H as a project. Of all the recent outages the only one of any significance was probably the power cable fix which took out the supply to more than just the SSL.
____________
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

The talk of microwave links has been hashed before. The Regents is still the landlord and the size of dish needed isn't something that can be on a camera tripod in a window. A rather substantial structure would need to be built.

As to lasers, I believe the FAA might have some objection to that idea. The elevation of the SSL is above the flight paths to several airports in the bay area.

Finally, all of you are forgetting you would need the permission at the other end to install the equipment and pay the rent at PIAX to house it. Right now the router at PIAX is donated as is the monthly fee for the rack space.

Finally all of you have forgotten the security issue. The computers that SETI uses are connected to the campus internet, and still would be after any data link. Campus IT would have to be in charge of the link for that reason alone. The politics can not be avoided.

The talk of microwave links has been hashed before. The Regents is still the landlord and the size of dish needed isn't something that can be on a camera tripod in a window. A rather substantial structure would need to be built.

As to lasers, I believe the FAA might have some objection to that idea. The elevation of the SSL is above the flight paths to several airports in the bay area.

Finally, all of you are forgetting you would need the permission at the other end to install the equipment and pay the rent at PIAX to house it. Right now the router at PIAX is donated as is the monthly fee for the rack space.

Finally all of you have forgotten the security issue. The computers that SETI uses are connected to the campus internet, and still would be after any data link. Campus IT would have to be in charge of the link for that reason alone. The politics can not be avoided.

Well, since I don't know what's still classified and what's not, I won't go into detail, but the military has had very small antennae with many-miles range for 30 years now. It's part of US military wireless networking equipment called Mobile Subscriber Equipment, and I would have a very very difficult time believing that we can't make it more efficient than it was 30 years ago. There's an image of one of the antennae here. The range of these are many miles. And yes, you can detach them from their prefab towers and simply mount them on existing structures. They were designed with this in mind. I've done it. http://news.cnet.com/2300-1035_3-10004616-26.html

Not that SETI will get their hands on the equipment, and not that it's got a fast enough transmission rate to be worth the effort, but the whole size and installation issue is a non-factor. The question is what sort of transmission rate is possible with that size equipment today.

The network security issue could also be a non-factor. Simply use data transfer drives like what is used for the data that the telescopes send SETI, so there's never a direct network link into the campus network.

Are there serious considerations? Definitely. But size and installation difficulties aren't problems. Cost might be. Politics certainly would be. A lot of stuff might be worked around. The people trying to do the working around need to have a good idea of what's possible though, or they are just shooting in the dark when they are trying to get a powerful data link established.